Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:25:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:28:16AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > But you're not. The license permissions you received don't permit using
> > the code under a completely difference license; for example, you can't
> > link the code with GPL work, since the licenses are incompatible. However,
> > you have to distribute your modifications under terms that *do* allow the
> > original programmer to do so. The license terms you're forced to release
> > modifications under are different from the ones you received.
(As an aside, I think this particular example was incorrect; he can't
use the GPL, since it would conflict with the "provided such versions
remain available under these terms ..." stipulation, but the general
example holds.)
> But if upstreqm incorporqtes your changes, thus creating a modification of
> your QPLed work, you have the same right as he has, don't you ?
Nope. Under QPL#3, I can only distribute my changes as patch files; I
can't distribute the work with my changes incorporated. However, the
original author can, since I'm required to give him special permission
to do so under QPL#3b.
I believe this extra permission violates DFSG#3. I can't release my
changes under the terms I received; I have to make a special additional
license grant, granting the original author permissions to my work that
he explicitly denied me to his.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: